ReviewCureus2025
Effectiveness of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Upper Limb Fine Motor Skills in Post-stroke Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stroke frequently results in persistent upper limb fine motor deficits, severely impairing daily activities. While transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is increasingly applied as an adjunct therapy, its effectiveness in restoring dexterity-specific outcomes remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of TMS in improving fine motor skills among post-stroke patients. Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, five databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar) were searched up to March 2025. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting upper limb fine motor outcomes in post-stroke patients undergoing TMS were included. Data were extracted and analyzed using RevMan 5.4.1, with mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated under a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 (ROB-2) tool. Of 1,416 screened studies, eight RCTs met eligibility, including 257 participants (127 rTMS vs. 130 controls). Study follow-up ranged from one to two months. Four studies were rated high quality, and four showed moderate concerns. Pooled analysis demonstrated no significant improvements with rTMS over control in the Box and Block test (MD: 0.75; 95% CI -4.62 to 6.11;
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.